IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v25y2024i3p593-604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration

Author

Listed:
  • Lisanne de Blok

    (8125Utrecht University School of Governance, 8125Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands)

  • Max Heermann

    (Cluster of Excellence ‘The Politics of Inequality’ and Department of Politics and Public Administration, 26567University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)

  • Julian Schuessler

    (Department of Political Science, 1006Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark)

  • Dirk Leuffen

    (Department of Politics and Public Administration and Cluster of Excellence ‘The Politics of Inequality’, 26567University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)

  • Catherine E. de Vries

    (Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Differentiated integration is often considered a solution to gridlock in the European Union. However, questions remain concerning its perceived legitimacy among the public. While research shows that most citizens are not, in principle, opposed to differentiated integration – although support varies across different differentiated integration models and different country contexts – we still know little about the role institutional design plays in citizens’ evaluations of differentiated integration. This article inspects how citizens evaluate different hypothetical differentiated integration arrangements, with varying decision-making procedures, using a conjoint experiment. We ask whether institutional arrangements can overcome citizens’ preference heterogeneity over differentiated integration, and thereby foster the legitimacy of a differentiated European Union. We find that while a majority of citizens care about the inclusiveness of differentiated integration arrangements, they also support limiting the number of veto points. Our analysis also reveals noteworthy differences across citizens with pro- and anti-European Union attitudes in the perceived fairness of differentiated integration arrangements.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:25:y:2024:i:3:p:593-604
    DOI: 10.1177/14651165241246384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14651165241246384
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/14651165241246384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:44:y:2006:i::p:533-562 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    3. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Esaiasson, Peter & Persson, Mikael & Gilljam, Mikael & Lindholm, Torun, 2019. "Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 291-314, January.
    5. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    6. Andreas Follesdal & Simon Hix, 2006. "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 533-562, September.
    7. Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2020. "Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 590-611, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brian Burgoon & Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Unemployment risk-sharing in the EU: How policy design influences citizen support for European unemployment policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 282-308, June.
    2. Nicoli, Francesco & van der Duin, David & Burgoon, Brian, 2023. "Which Energy Security Union? An experiment on public preferences for energy union alternatives in 5 western European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    3. Roman Hlatky, 2023. "The politicization of European integration and support for restrictive migration policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 684-707, December.
    4. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    5. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    6. E. Keith Smith & Dennis Kolcava & Thomas Bernauer, 2024. "Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Rauh, Christian, 2022. "Clear messages to the European public? The language of European Commission press releases 1985–2020," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar, pages 1-19.
    10. Caroline Mcevoy, 2016. "The Role of Political Efficacy on Public Opinion in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1159-1174, September.
    11. Beetsma, Roel & Burgoon, Brian & Nicoli, Francesco, 2023. "Is european attachment sufficiently strong to support an EU fiscal capacity: Evidence from a conjoint experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Chu, Haoran & Liu, Sixiao, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    13. Niels Gheyle, 2019. "Conceptualizing the Parliamentarization and Politicization of European Policies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 227-236.
    14. Dimiter Toshkov, 2011. "Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: A lost relationship," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 169-191, June.
    15. Aaron R Kaufman, 2020. "Implementing novel, flexible, and powerful survey designs in R Shiny," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, April.
    16. KASUYA Yuko & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    17. Federica Genovese & Gerald Schneider, 2020. "Smoke with fire: Financial crises and the demand for parliamentary oversight in the European Union," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 633-665, July.
    18. Anke Moerland & Clara Weinhardt, 2020. "Politicisation ‘Reversed’: EU Free Trade Negotiations with West Africa and the Caribbean," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 266-276.
    19. Breslawski, Jori, 2024. "Who Deserves Aid? Perceptions of Fairness in Contexts of Forced Displacement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    20. Thomas Winzen & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2023. "National Differentiation Experience and Citizen Support for Differentiated Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1235-1260, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:25:y:2024:i:3:p:593-604. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.